27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Interesting article in today's Guardian. I'm a fan of Mr King's work, even more so after this. I forgive you for Cujo 
This articles contains explicite language.
Bestselling novelist Stephen King, who gives away $4m (£2.5m) a year in charitable donations, has issued an expletive-filled call to America to increase the rate of tax paid by the country's rich.
King himself currently pays taxes of around 28% on his income, and at a recent rally in Florida wondered publicly why he was not paying a higher rate of 50%. You're unhappy about it? "Cut a check and shut up," was the response from his listeners, the author writes in a piece for The Daily Beast entitled Tax Me, for F@%&'s Sake! "If you want to pay more, pay more, they said. Tired of hearing about it, they said. Tough gak for you guys, because I'm not tired of talking about it. I've known rich people, and why not, since I'm one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing 'Disco Inferno' than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar."
Some of America's rich do donate part of their tax savings, King acknowledged; he himself gives $4m "to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organisations that underwrite the arts". But, calling himself only "'baby rich' compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills", the novelist says this "doesn't go far enough [because] charity from the rich can't fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny".
America's national responsibilities, such as education and health care, cannot be taken on by the "charitable one per centers", writes King. "That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry," he says. "And hey, why don't we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28% do not give out another 28% of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough."
But despite this the rich, he believes, are "hallowed" in America. "Don't ask me why; I don't get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog gak," writes King. "I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, 'I'm rich and I don't apologise for it.' Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want – those who aren't blinded by a lot of bs persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money – is for you to acknowledge that you couldn't have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it's not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It's un-fething-American is what it is."
King says it is a "practical necessity and a moral imperative" that "those who have received much must be obligated to pay ... in the same proportion", or the "first real ripples of discontent" seen in the Occupy protests "will just be the beginning".
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Hey, I liked Cujo!
Also, I agree with him.
He still can't write a decent ending to save his life though.
29408
Post by: Melissia
"Don't ask me why; I don't get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog gak,"
At the very least he gave me a good laugh.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing spending.
PS - the 1% controls 23% of the wealth and pays something like 40% of the taxes.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.
Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
IMHO, we should talk about increasing taxes after we get serious about decreasing deficit spending. As of right now, I believe simply increasing the tax rate on anyone is simply a blank check for the government to spend more money.
If I could see evidence of a good faith effort to reduce the deficit (from either party, I'm trying to be non-partisan) that got, say, 50% - 75% of the deficit cut then we could talk about increasing taxes.
The government doesn't control the price of gasoline. Period. Increasing taxes on the rich will not make the life of someone in the middle class easier.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Well then, what if they were to lower classes on the middle class while increasing taxes on the upper class?
That would certainly be a start to making life in the middle class at least a little bit easier.
5534
Post by: dogma
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Increasing taxes on the rich will not make the life of someone in the middle class easier.
Depends on what the taxes pay for.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
Fafnir wrote:Well then, what if they were to lower (TAXES?) on the middle class while increasing taxes on the upper class?
That would certainly be a start to making life in the middle class at least a little bit easier.
I think you meant lower taxes on the middle class - hence the FIX. Blatant wealth redistribution like that does nothing to reduce a staggering federal deficit. Unfunded medicare, social security, and other entitlement programs will still sink the entire economy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Increasing taxes on the rich will not make the life of someone in the middle class easier.
Depends on what the taxes pay for.
I think any (responsible) increase in taxes would go towards paying for programs we've already signed into law but operate at a deficit. So at best, we're talking about simply extending the status quo.
I should also have been less precise. "someone" in the middle class may indeed benefit, but it will not make life for the middle or lower class as a whole better.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.
Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.
Here you go.
*Put in a budget (I know that just sent all the Democrats screaming from the room). The budget will have a maximum $ expenditure of the same as calender year 2011 MINUS 10%. This includes ALL expenditures.
*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 1%
$15001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
>$500,000: 50%
Tax rate is based on any income stream including dividends, earnings, revenues, fees, government benefits, and child support. ANY CASH IN THE DOOR, again no deductions.
If doesn't balance then budget is reduced 5% further each year until it does.
Work for you?
29408
Post by: Melissia
A balanced budget would only work if we slashed defense and did major reforms ro medicare and social security.
The latter two aren't going to happen because the voting block of old people tend to vote in ways that help them at the expense of younger generations, and the former isn't going to happen because it would make the Republican party have an aneurysm.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
Melissia wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.
Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.
Tax rates have dropped across the board. There's plenty of blame to go around. Tax cuts by republicans (when not feasible/warranted) and spending increasing by democrats has totally fethed us. You can google effective federal tax rate by income to see the numbers in from the CBO.
29408
Post by: Melissia
They've dropped for the top one percent far more than for everyone else, however-- taxes are flatter than any time in recent US history.
"Effective tax rate" and "real tax rate" aren't the same thing. Effective tax rates are rarely real, especially not for the rich.
5534
Post by: dogma
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I think any (responsible) increase in taxes would go towards paying for programs we've already signed into law but operate at a deficit. So at best, we're talking about simply extending the status quo.
Maybe, maybe not. Tax increases can't really be considered in a vacuum. They're, ideally, part of an overall reform package that includes budget cuts, restructuring, and even entirely new programs.
Of course, all of those things, even budget cuts, will require quite a bit of political capital to accomplish; and good luck finding that these days. But who knows, maybe the American people will start to realize that they're just as big a part of the problem as politicians.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I should also have been less precise. "someone" in the middle class may indeed benefit, but it will not make life for the middle or lower class as a whole better.
Yes it will. Even if only say, 15% of the middle and lower classes (Though, really, its arguable as to whether or not there is a true "lower class" in the US.) benefit from taxing the rich, then the middle and lower classes have, collectively, benefited. Simply because a thing does not benefit all members of a group, does not mean that the group as a whole does not benefit.
9644
Post by: Clthomps
Frazzled wrote:Melissia wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.
Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.
Here you go.
*Put in a budget (I know that just sent all the Democrats screaming from the room). The budget will have a maximum $ expenditure of the same as calender year 2011 MINUS 10%. This includes ALL expenditures.
*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 1%
$15001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
>$500,000: 50%
Tax rate is based on any income stream including dividends, earnings, revenues, fees, government benefits, and child support. ANY CASH IN THE DOOR, again no deductions.
If doesn't balance then budget is reduced 5% further each year until it does.
Work for you?
That's a good start Fraz but I think the flat rates should look more like this:
*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 0%
$15,001-30,000 1%
$30,001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
$500,001- 1,000,000: 45%
$1MIL-$20MIL 50%
+10% To a max of 80% for every 20 Million
People that make under 15k a year need every penny they can get, and people over 1million a year can spare some change 
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
dogma wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I think any (responsible) increase in taxes would go towards paying for programs we've already signed into law but operate at a deficit. So at best, we're talking about simply extending the status quo.
Maybe, maybe not. Tax increases can't really be considered in a vacuum. They're, ideally, part of an overall reform package that includes budget cuts, restructuring, and even entirely new programs.
Of course, all of those things, even budget cuts, will require quite a bit of political capital to accomplish; and good luck finding that these days. But who knows, maybe the American people will start to realize that they're just as big a part of the problem as politicians.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I should also have been less precise. "someone" in the middle class may indeed benefit, but it will not make life for the middle or lower class as a whole better.
Yes it will. Even if only say, 15% of the middle and lower classes (Though, really, its arguable as to whether or not there is a true "lower class" in the US.) benefit from taxing the rich, then the middle and lower classes have, collectively, benefited. Simply because a thing does not benefit all members of a group, does not mean that the group as a whole does not benefit.
Comprehensive reform is what I'm getting at. Both sides of Congress are so beholden to their base that reform is impossible. I think that if conservatives had any faith that increased taxes would help solve the problem AS PART OF a general overhaul of the federal government, there would be a whole lot less heart-burn over the idea.
I know I (although I am by no means even top 10%) wouldn't mind paying some more taxes if I felt it would solve the deep problems our country faces.
EDIT: I'd be for a federal sales tax on nonessential goods and services. Buying a iPhone is not a necessity. Tax it.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Frazzled wrote:Melissia wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.
Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.
Here you go.
*Put in a budget (I know that just sent all the Democrats screaming from the room). The budget will have a maximum $ expenditure of the same as calender year 2011 MINUS 10%. This includes ALL expenditures.
*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 1%
$15001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
>$500,000: 50%
Tax rate is based on any income stream including dividends, earnings, revenues, fees, government benefits, and child support. ANY CASH IN THE DOOR, again no deductions.
If doesn't balance then budget is reduced 5% further each year until it does.
Work for you?
I like the flat tax, everyone pays the same %
Then cut all the subsidies and balance the budget properly.
charge interest on the money used to bail out the banks at prime +1%
also child support isn't tax deductible in the states I frequent anyways.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
Melissia wrote:A balanced budget would only work if we slashed defense and did major reforms ro medicare and social security.
The latter two aren't going to happen because the voting block of old people tend to vote in ways that help them at the expense of younger generations, and the former isn't going to happen because it would make the Republican party have an aneurysm.
TBH, if I were old I wouldn't want Social Security cut either (especially if I was depending on it).
I think the under 40s will have to bite the bullet and pay for the codgers while getting nothing in return for real change to take place.
29408
Post by: Melissia
sirlynchmob wrote:I like the flat tax, everyone pays the same %
Which effects poor people disproportionately. A person making 15k a year will be devastated by by losing $1,500, but ten percent be a pretty small amount for someone making even 50k a year, in comparison.
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
Melissia wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:I like the flat tax, everyone pays the same %
Which effects poor people disproportionately.
A person making 15k a year will be devastated by by losing $1,500, but ten percent be a pretty small amount for someone making even 50k a year, in comparison.
Exactly, this is the problem with it. While the percentage of tax taken may be the same, the effect it has on those being taxed sure isn't.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
Hazardous Harry wrote:Melissia wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:I like the flat tax, everyone pays the same %
Which effects poor people disproportionately.
A person making 15k a year will be devastated by by losing $1,500, but ten percent be a pretty small amount for someone making even 50k a year, in comparison.
Exactly, this is the problem with it. While the percentage of tax taken may be the same, the effect it has on those being taxed sure isn't.
Then we need to think before we use the word "fair".
If I pay 20% and you pay 0%... that really does not feel 'fair' to me!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Clthomps wrote:Frazzled wrote:Melissia wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxing the rich 100% of their income won't fix global warming nor lower the price of oil by a single red cent. It's not so much that I'm terrified of people being taxed more (although I am opposed to it), I am terrified of the federal government seeing a higher tax rate and simply increasing taxes.
Why? The tax rates for the top 1% has been falling for about fifty years, halving itself from 70% in 1960 to 35% in 2010. There's been zero upward trend at all, being afraid of it is kind of peculiar and has no historical basis in the US.
Here you go.
*Put in a budget (I know that just sent all the Democrats screaming from the room). The budget will have a maximum $ expenditure of the same as calender year 2011 MINUS 10%. This includes ALL expenditures.
*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 1%
$15001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
>$500,000: 50%
Tax rate is based on any income stream including dividends, earnings, revenues, fees, government benefits, and child support. ANY CASH IN THE DOOR, again no deductions.
If doesn't balance then budget is reduced 5% further each year until it does.
Work for you?
That's a good start Fraz but I think the flat rates should look more like this:
*Tax rates as follows: NO DEDUCTIONS
0 - $15,000: 0%
$15,001-30,000 1%
$30,001 - $50,000: 5%
$50001 - 150000: 20%
$150001 - 250000: 30%
$250001-500000:40%
$500,001- 1,000,000: 45%
$1MIL-$20MIL 50%
+10% To a max of 80% for every 20 Million
People that make under 15k a year need every penny they can get, and people over 1million a year can spare some change
no. Everyone must have skin in the game.
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Hazardous Harry wrote:Melissia wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:I like the flat tax, everyone pays the same %
Which effects poor people disproportionately.
A person making 15k a year will be devastated by by losing $1,500, but ten percent be a pretty small amount for someone making even 50k a year, in comparison.
Exactly, this is the problem with it. While the percentage of tax taken may be the same, the effect it has on those being taxed sure isn't.
Then we need to think before we use the word "fair".
If I pay 20% and you pay 0%... that really does not feel 'fair' to me!
If you end up paying $30million, but have another $30 million left over anyway then you aren't really being adversely affected by the loss of money.
If I end up paying $10,000, leaving me only another $10,000 to live off, then I am most definitely being more adversely affected than you are from the loss of $30 million. You won't struggle to pay rent and buy food with that kind of cash, I will. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:
no. Everyone must have skin in the game.
No exceptions?
Because I can think of quite a few where being exempt from tax is the just way of going about things.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I presume Fraz also wants a tax on non-profits and church organizations (which are not always nion-profit).
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:I presume Fraz also wants a tax on non-profits and church organizations (which are not always nion-profit).
Works for me. I am as constant as the Northern Star.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
no. Everyone must have skin in the game.
They already do by virtue of being citizens. Moreover people in the lower tax brackets, unlike people in the upper tax brackets, don't generally have the option of simply leaving.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Then we need to think before we use the word "fair".
If I pay 20% and you pay 0%... that really does not feel 'fair' to me!
If the purchasing power of the remaining 80% of your income massively exceeds the purchasing power of 100% of my income, I see no issue.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Citizens can vote themselves benefits, therefor NOT having skin in the game.
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
Frazzled wrote:Citizens can vote themselves benefits, therefor NOT having skin in the game.
How does having a stake in something (even if you benefit from it) mean that you aren't invested in it?
And, again, absolutely no exceptions, Frazz?
28311
Post by: Shrike325
Hazardous Harry wrote:Frazzled wrote:Citizens can vote themselves benefits, therefor NOT having skin in the game.
How does having a stake in something (even if you benefit from it) mean that you aren't invested in it?
And, again, absolutely no exceptions, Frazz?
Who would get an exception, and why? Profit is profit, any way you slice it.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:Citizens can vote themselves benefits, therefor NOT having skin in the game.
Wait, so you're claiming no one has skin in the game? Or are tax payers somehow magically not citizens?
Either way, any given citizen can vote (or buy) themselves benefits, obviously, tons of different tax payer demographics do it all the time; either by way of tax breaks, subsidies, or some other mechanism.
The "skin in the game" doesn't come from any financial commitment, it comes from being subject to the system itself by way of either the tax code, or the programs it funds.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I'm wondering when the new book drops. I love Stephen King, but whenever an author or similarly creative type makes this kind of spectacle I'm always looking for their angle.
If you feel like you have too much money laying around, donate it. Hell, give it to me.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I think what is telling is King gives his money to charity. HE decides where it will do good.
He COULD give it to Unca Sam to help pay off debt, that is an option we all have. Anyone can choose to pay the Feds more.
Knowing this, King still decided where HE thinks his money would do the best. He doesn't actually believe the Gov't would use the money wisely or he would give it to them to distribute and spend as the Gov't sees fit.
Also note how he pays a rate on 'income'. I am willing to bet 'income' in this case has a specific definition left out of the article, and that it does NOT cover returns on investment but instead covers what he makes off his books and other IP, actual income. I suspect all rich folks with money reported as 'income' under the same definition that King uses get taxed at the same rate (assuming they make a similar amount).
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
Shrike325 wrote:Hazardous Harry wrote:Frazzled wrote:Citizens can vote themselves benefits, therefor NOT having skin in the game.
How does having a stake in something (even if you benefit from it) mean that you aren't invested in it?
And, again, absolutely no exceptions, Frazz?
Who would get an exception, and why? Profit is profit, any way you slice it.
Well first of all, I would say that the people who wouldn't be able to afford rent or food if taxed should definitely be exempt.
That's just a basic standard I would assume almost everyone would agree on. I'm certain there are more examples, it's just a matter of drawing the line. Automatically Appended Next Post: CptJake wrote:I think what is telling is King gives his money to charity. HE decides where it will do good.
He COULD give it to Unca Sam to help pay off debt, that is an option we all have. Anyone can choose to pay the Feds more.
Knowing this, King still decided where HE thinks his money would do the best. He doesn't actually believe the Gov't would use the money wisely or he would give it to them to distribute and spend as the Gov't sees fit.
Funny, because this is both raised and addressed in the article. Which implies you might want to give it another reading.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Hazardous Harry wrote:CptJake wrote:I think what is telling is King gives his money to charity. HE decides where it will do good.
He COULD give it to Unca Sam to help pay off debt, that is an option we all have. Anyone can choose to pay the Feds more.
Knowing this, King still decided where HE thinks his money would do the best. He doesn't actually believe the Gov't would use the money wisely or he would give it to them to distribute and spend as the Gov't sees fit.
Funny, because this is both raised and addressed in the article. Which implies you might want to give it another reading.
Really? Care to point it out? All I can see is King claiming he feels some don't pay enough. I do not see where he has paid extra to Uncle Sam himself. I cannot see where in the article my point is addressed at all. In fact, when called on it King replies "If you want to pay more, pay more, they said. Tired of hearing about it, they said. Tough gak for you guys, because I'm not tired of talking about it. I've known rich people, and why not, since I'm one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing 'Disco Inferno' than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar." Yet HE does NOT pay one more cent than he has to to Uncle Sam. He chooses what charities HE want to give to.
6979
Post by: Nicorex
Well mabye if we didnt give 4 billion away to fraudulent tax refunds... We wouldnt need to tax the rich anymore.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Monster Rain wrote:I'm wondering when the new book drops. I love Stephen King, but whenever an author or similarly creative type makes this kind of spectacle I'm always looking for their angle.
He just had a book published pretty recently, so I imagine it's at least a year till he cranks out his next phonebook.
So far as the OP goes: when the Buffett rule was proposed, many lawmakers who are opposed to it pointed out if he didn't feel his tax was fair, he should write a check.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the entire net wealth of Warren Buffet (or Steven King) are not sufficient to alter the fundamentals of our current economic situation (we spend more than we make). We need to either cut spending, or raise revenue via taxes (probably, both). Since almost half our spending goes to Social Security and Medicare, any cuts to entitlement programs like those will by definition adversely affect the poorest and least fortunate among us. On tax revenues, you have to go to where the wealth is: the wealthy, enjoying historically low levels of taxation; are off the table for guys like Paul Ryan. Arguing that we should balance the budget by cutting to the services to the poor while also asking for the very wealthy to voluntarily disgorge what they'd like to is not only sort of morally skewed; it's probably not going to work anyway since they have just as free to do so since 2000 as they are now and clearly those voluntary receipts have proven inadequate.
TL;DR - Taking every penny Warren Buffet and Steven King has won't make a big difference, but since the 1% have 42 of every 100 dollars in the country, adjusting their tax upwards even fractionally will have an enormous difference.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Hazardous Harry wrote:Frazzled wrote:Citizens can vote themselves benefits, therefor NOT having skin in the game.
How does having a stake in something (even if you benefit from it) mean that you aren't invested in it?
And, again, absolutely no exceptions, Frazz?
1. Thats the point. If they don't pay taxes THEY DON'T have a stake in it.
2. The Herald of the Coming of the Great Wiener is not into exceptions. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:Citizens can vote themselves benefits, therefor NOT having skin in the game.
Wait, so you're claiming no one has skin in the game? Or are tax payers somehow magically not citizens?
Nope, you're mistaken. You only have skin in the game if you pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes but can vote to get money from the government, then you don't. Current society is a result.
The "skin in the game" doesn't come from any financial commitment, it comes from being subject to the system itself by way of either the tax code, or the programs it funds.
Horse gak.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Nicorex wrote:Well mabye if we didnt give 4 billion away to fraudulent tax refunds... We wouldnt need to tax the rich anymore.
We burn through that every 2 weeks in Afghanistan alone. You're also misstating the figure; we spent 4 billion under that section of the law; but no one knows what percentage of that is fraudulent; it's a safe assumption that fraud is a fractional percentage of that figure. But this debate is probably best had in the other thread.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Fraz, Horse gak yourself.
Whereas if wealthy people can but influence via campaign contributions, that's okay because they're paying taxes?
Even with full refunds, poor people don't have that much influence. The idea that they'll just vote themselves benefits is empty rhetoric. A theoretical game which hasn't proved true (except in direct ballot measure states in California, where the whole state votes for free candy and less taxes). If poor, non-tax-paying folks really had some massive coordinated power to influence legislation, we wouldn't keep cutting benefits (some exceptions, like Medicare D) while cutting taxes for wealthy people, like we've largely been for the past couple of decades.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
As always Im in the middle groun here, I hate the narrow minded class warriors that hate on the rich, but I also think that King has a point, especially about the middle classes paying so much tax.
Case in point, my brother didnt go into the military, he is now one of Mike Ashley (Billionaire owner of Newcastles) top blokes, and he has a salary of about $110,000 US, plus a yearly bonus of about the same in a lump sum if he hits his targets.
HE draws the hate of the jelous class warrior types you see post on here occasionally. They dont see that the poor sap works 80 hours a week. I have told him several times, I wouldnt swap jobs with him just to pay more tax. He does enjoy a better standard of living than me, but not hugely so.
I have a two bedroom apartment, he has a 4 bedroom detached house in a nice area, I drive a Ford, he drives a Jag, but thats about it. He gets less holiday, works silly hours, and here is the good bit.
He showed my his payslip when he got his bonus last year as he was ranting about the tax man. After they took their 40% plus national insurance, he got less than half. I think from his 110k he got about 49k?
He is well off, but he isnt fething rich. He will actually have to put some effort in to pay for all his kids schooling and keep them in Xbox games, he certainly doesnt have large amounts of money lying around because he spends like a trooper. I bet he doesnt have more than 20k in his bank.
He will probably never be a miilionaire, or if he is it will only be adding in the value of his home, if he pays off the mortagage, so maybe when he is in his late 50s?
Why is he paying over 50% of his bonus in taxes?
And people like Mitt Romney, who is worth what? 300 million? 17%?
The poor get money for nothing, the rich have far too much they can never spend it, I cant help but feeling that the middle class, as King says, are the ones that are getting truly fethed over.
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
CptJake wrote:Hazardous Harry wrote:CptJake wrote:I think what is telling is King gives his money to charity. HE decides where it will do good.
He COULD give it to Unca Sam to help pay off debt, that is an option we all have. Anyone can choose to pay the Feds more.
Knowing this, King still decided where HE thinks his money would do the best. He doesn't actually believe the Gov't would use the money wisely or he would give it to them to distribute and spend as the Gov't sees fit.
Funny, because this is both raised and addressed in the article. Which implies you might want to give it another reading.
Really? Care to point it out? All I can see is King claiming he feels some don't pay enough. I do not see where he has paid extra to Uncle Sam himself. I cannot see where in the article my point is addressed at all. In fact, when called on it King replies "If you want to pay more, pay more, they said. Tired of hearing about it, they said. Tough gak for you guys, because I'm not tired of talking about it. I've known rich people, and why not, since I'm one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing 'Disco Inferno' than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar." Yet HE does NOT pay one more cent than he has to to Uncle Sam. He chooses what charities HE want to give to.
I never claimed he did give money to the government, I said the article itself has discussed (and dismissed) the claims you were making (That Stephen King doesn't trust the government to spend the money wisely).
4402
Post by: CptJake
Hazardous Harry wrote:CptJake wrote:Hazardous Harry wrote:CptJake wrote:I think what is telling is King gives his money to charity. HE decides where it will do good.
He COULD give it to Unca Sam to help pay off debt, that is an option we all have. Anyone can choose to pay the Feds more.
Knowing this, King still decided where HE thinks his money would do the best. He doesn't actually believe the Gov't would use the money wisely or he would give it to them to distribute and spend as the Gov't sees fit.
Funny, because this is both raised and addressed in the article. Which implies you might want to give it another reading.
Really? Care to point it out? All I can see is King claiming he feels some don't pay enough. I do not see where he has paid extra to Uncle Sam himself. I cannot see where in the article my point is addressed at all. In fact, when called on it King replies "If you want to pay more, pay more, they said. Tired of hearing about it, they said. Tough gak for you guys, because I'm not tired of talking about it. I've known rich people, and why not, since I'm one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing 'Disco Inferno' than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar." Yet HE does NOT pay one more cent than he has to to Uncle Sam. He chooses what charities HE want to give to.
I never claimed he did give money to the government, I said the article itself has discussed (and dismissed) the claims you were making (That Stephen King doesn't trust the government to spend the money wisely).
He obviously doesn't trust it to spend the money wisely (or at least more wisely than he feels he can on his own) or he would give the 4 mil to the gov't vice charities and causes he thinks deserving. If he thought the Gov't would spend the money better than he could, he would allow them to do so. What King is stating is he feels HE is smart enough to spend 'best' but he doesn't trust OTHER rich folks to do the same. So he desires to use the Gov't Gun to force others to spend other than how they choose. At the same time HE chooses NOT to give more to the gov't than he has to. I'll go out on a limb and bet $100 that Mr. King has an accountant and or lawyer than ensure he takes advantage of every tax break and loop hole available to him to ensure he pays the minimul taxes he has to. He is smart to so. But if it is good enough for him, it is also good enough for others.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Ouze wrote:TL;DR - Taking every penny Warren Buffet and Steven King has won't make a big difference, but since the 1% have 42 of every 100 dollars in the country, adjusting their tax upwards even fractionally will have an enormous difference.
This is actually enormously wrong. The reason it's wrong is because "having" 42 of every 100 dollars does not actually mean the 1% take in anything like that amount in annual income. The Buffett Rule was estimated by various thinktanks to raise an additional 30-50 billion per year. The non-partisan Congress Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the effect would be 50 billion over ten years.
Whether 50 billion per year or over ten years, the amount is simply immaterial versus the size of the revenue-expenditures gap.
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
CptJake wrote:
He obviously doesn't trust it to spend the money wisely (or at least more wisely than he feels he can on his own) or he would give the 4 mil to the gov't vice charities and causes he thinks deserving. If he thought the Gov't would spend the money better than he could, he would allow them to do so. What King is stating is he feels HE is smart enough to spend 'best' but he doesn't trust OTHER rich folks to do the same. So he desires to use the Gov't Gun to force others to spend other than how they choose. At the same time HE chooses NOT to give more to the gov't than he has to.
Exactly what would him giving money directly to the government prove? Why would it be fair that he gives up his wealth willingly why others hoard theirs? His point isn't that rich people should donate money to the government as they see fit, it is that rich people should be taxed by the government.
I'll go out on a limb and bet $100 that Mr. King has an accountant and or lawyer than ensure he takes advantage of every tax break and loop hole available to him to ensure he pays the minimul taxes he has to. He is smart to so. But if it is good enough for him, it is also good enough for others.
How is this a good thing? It only shows another advantage the very wealthy have, and ensures they stay wealthy.
12313
Post by: Ouze
sourclams wrote:Ouze wrote:TL;DR - Taking every penny Warren Buffet and Steven King has won't make a big difference, but since the 1% have 42 of every 100 dollars in the country, adjusting their tax upwards even fractionally will have an enormous difference.
This is actually enormously wrong. The reason it's wrong is because "having" 42 of every 100 dollars does not actually mean the 1% take in anything like that amount in annual income.
Would "control" have made it more accurate? Automatically Appended Next Post: mattyrm wrote: HE draws the hate of the jelous class warrior types you see post on here occasionally.
Are we referring to the class warfare types who want to continue enormous tax breaks to billionaires while cutting benefits to the poor? Or is that not considered "class warfare"?
4402
Post by: CptJake
I've posted this to similar threads. I think it has relevance here.
29408
Post by: Melissia
CptJake wrote:http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltdis53K8n1qbogplo1_500.png
That argument has no basis in reality, it's utterly nonsensical. Taxpayers voting for the government to give more money to the poor IS giving more of your money to the poor, because THEY pay for the government to do it. That's what taxes are.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Melissia wrote:CptJake wrote:http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltdis53K8n1qbogplo1_500.png
That argument has no basis in reality, it's utterly nonsensical.
Taxpayers voting for the government to give more money to the poor IS giving more of your money to the poor, because THEY pay for the government to do it. That's what taxes are.
Vitriol and anger on your part does not negate the argument. Voting to raise taxes on anyone other than yourself is forcing OTHERS to pay. That is the pretty simple point of the quote. Anyone who chooses to give, CAN give without raising taxes on others.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:CptJake wrote:http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltdis53K8n1qbogplo1_500.png
That argument has no basis in reality, it's utterly nonsensical.
Taxpayers voting for the government to give more money to the poor IS giving more of your money to the poor, because THEY pay for the government to do it. That's what taxes are.
Its the opposite. Its theft. you're voting to force SOMEONE ELSE to do the thing you should be doing. Thats the problem with bleeding hearts. They think they have a heart but always want someone else to bleed for it.
29408
Post by: Melissia
CptJake wrote:Vitriol and anger on your part does not negate the argument.
It doesn't need to, the argument is utterly bunk to begin with.
As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:CptJake wrote:Vitriol and anger on your part does not negate the argument.
It doesn't need to, the argument is utterly bunk to begin with.
As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.
1. I don't believe you're a taxpayer actually. As this subject is income and capital gains taxes, do you actually pay any after deductions?
2. Even if so, you're voting to take a lot more money from other people and do the work you should be doing.
While I realize there are social goods I'm also keenly aware that I'm forcing other people to spend money.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
A much better system would be not to have any taxation.
The government could be funded by charitable donations.
39004
Post by: biccat
Early in American history, the Federal government was funded solely through tariffs.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Frazzled wrote: no. Everyone must have skin in the game.
Fraz addressed this later in the thread. Thanks for clarifying.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Easy E wrote:Frazzled wrote: no. Everyone must have skin in the game.
This expression confuses me, and I'm not sure I understand what exactly it is trying to say.
If you live in the same country don't you all ready have "skin" in the game? What happens to the country impacts you, right?
Maybe I'm missing somethign fundamental here.
No and no. If you have the power to vote to give benefits to yourself for no cost to yourself then you have no skin in the game. Either be part of a family unit that pays income taxes or don't be able to vote on any matters concerning taxing and spending.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
There should be a voter tax of 1 cent per election.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Nope, you're mistaken. You only have skin in the game if you pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes but can vote to get money from the government, then you don't. Current society is a result.
That's blatantly false, because any given party is at risk of paying taxes at any future point regardless of how much they presently pay in taxes. Not paying taxes now does not imply one will not pay taxes in the future, meaning that there is an inherent interest in the way taxes are assessed and how the resultant funds are spent.
Again, any given citizen can vote himself benefits, and considering that the ~50% of the country that incurs a net loss due to taxation account for a little over 60% of the voting population in the Presidential election (its even higher in Congressional elections) one wonders who is voting themselves benefits. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:
No and no. If you have the power to vote to give benefits to yourself for no cost to yourself then you have no skin in the game. Either be part of a family unit that pays income taxes or don't be able to vote on any matters concerning taxing and spending.
Everyone has this power. Everyone. You could vote for a 98% tax on all people that aren't lawyers, and require that all resultant funds be funneled into a special lawyers-only healthcare fund.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Frazzled wrote:Easy E wrote:Frazzled wrote: no. Everyone must have skin in the game.
This expression confuses me, and I'm not sure I understand what exactly it is trying to say.
If you live in the same country don't you all ready have "skin" in the game? What happens to the country impacts you, right?
Maybe I'm missing somethign fundamental here.
No and no. If you have the power to vote to give benefits to yourself for no cost to yourself then you have no skin in the game. Either be part of a family unit that pays income taxes or don't be able to vote on any matters concerning taxing and spending.
Hmmmm, kind of like the only people who should be willing to vote are the ones who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend the nation as soldiers?
6872
Post by: sourclams
Ouze wrote:sourclams wrote:Ouze wrote:TL;DR - Taking every penny Warren Buffet and Steven King has won't make a big difference, but since the 1% have 42 of every 100 dollars in the country, adjusting their tax upwards even fractionally will have an enormous difference.
This is actually enormously wrong. The reason it's wrong is because "having" 42 of every 100 dollars does not actually mean the 1% take in anything like that amount in annual income.
Would "control" have made it more accurate?
I doubt that "control" is more accurate a term but the term itself is irrelevant. The reality is that you could confiscate 100% of the 1%'s annual income and still not generate meaningful revenue.
29408
Post by: Melissia
You would get more taking 50% of the top 1% than if you took 100% of the bottom twenty percent.
But that aside, increasing the tax on capital gains to be equal to the tax rate on income would help a lot as well.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
I may be reading things wrong here, but are the American posters seriously suggesting NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION?
The irony... 
6872
Post by: sourclams
Melissia wrote:As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.
I was under the impression you were unemployed? If not unemployed, underemployed in a salary range that probably does not net pay federal income tax? Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:You would get more taking 50% of the top 1% than if you took 100% of the bottom twenty percent.
But that aside, increasing the tax on capital gains to be equal to the tax rate on income would help a lot as well.
And it's irrelevant because this is talking about marginal increases in revenue growth. Tens of billions per year kind of marginal. Immaterial set against the deficit.
4402
Post by: CptJake
sourclams wrote:Melissia wrote:As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.
I was under the impression you were unemployed? If not unemployed, underemployed in a salary range that probably does not net pay federal income tax?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:You would get more taking 50% of the top 1% than if you took 100% of the bottom twenty percent.
But that aside, increasing the tax on capital gains to be equal to the tax rate on income would help a lot as well.
And it's irrelevant because this is talking about marginal increases in revenue growth. Tens of billions per year kind of marginal. Immaterial set against the deficit.
It is also less relevant when you consider a increase of taxes on capital gains will lower the over all capital gains as the increased cost of investing is taken into account by the investors.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Easy E wrote:Frazzled wrote:Easy E wrote:Frazzled wrote: no. Everyone must have skin in the game.
This expression confuses me, and I'm not sure I understand what exactly it is trying to say. If you live in the same country don't you all ready have "skin" in the game? What happens to the country impacts you, right? Maybe I'm missing somethign fundamental here.
No and no. If you have the power to vote to give benefits to yourself for no cost to yourself then you have no skin in the game. Either be part of a family unit that pays income taxes or don't be able to vote on any matters concerning taxing and spending.
Hmmmm, kind of like the only people who should be willing to vote are the ones who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend the nation as soldiers?
I'd be ok with that too. No more unnecessary wars. I didn't vote for a second term for Bush I because of Desert Storm. Thats why I had sepcifically voted FOR a Republican. Prior to that, Republicans generally didn't start wars (may have been the first actually).
12313
Post by: Ouze
sourclams wrote:Melissia wrote:As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.
I was under the impression you were unemployed? If not unemployed, underemployed in a salary range that probably does not net pay federal income tax?
Aren't you making a false correlation that the only taxpayers are those which pay "net federal income tax"? Because a great deal of Americans don't make enough to pay federal income tax, but pay plenty of other tax: state, local, payroll, FICA, sales, possibly capital gains, etc etc etc....
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:sourclams wrote:Melissia wrote:As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.
I was under the impression you were unemployed? If not unemployed, underemployed in a salary range that probably does not net pay federal income tax?
Aren't you making a false correlation that the only taxpayers are those which pay "net federal income tax"? Because a great deal of Americans don't make enough to pay federal income tax, but pay plenty of other tax: state, local, payroll, FICA, sales, possibly capital gains, etc etc etc....
True but the topic is income tax and cap gains. Thats the OP.
48860
Post by: Joey
The moment you talk about "taxpayers' money" you're suggesting a plutocracy - since the rich overwealmingly pay the most tax. Since, you know, they have the most money to pay. In the UK 50% of all income tax revenue is paid by the top 10%.
When I got a job and started paying taxes my opinions about the country didn't change really. Still ambivalent about "the expenses scandal" and all the other rubbish that in the grand scheme of things is pointless but we're expected to care about because of some vague notion about still owning money once it's been paid in taxation.
6872
Post by: sourclams
CptJake wrote:It is also less relevant when you consider a increase of taxes on capital gains will lower the over all capital gains as the increased cost of investing is taken into account by the investors.
I didn't even try to get into that topic because even our government officials seem to believe that behaviors will not change when the constraints do.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Last year I had an income that is not equal to zero, and thus this year I filed my taxes. I've filed taxes several times before (only one year after hitting eighteen did I have no income at all). But the amount is irrelevant-- I filed my taxes and submitted them to the federal government; ergo, I am a taxpayer. This discussion of "who is a taxpayer" is pointless and stupid.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:Last year I had an income that is not equal to zero, and thus this year I filed my taxes. I've filed taxes several times before (only one year after hitting eighteen did I have no income at all). But the amount is irrelevant-- I filed my taxes and submitted them to the federal government; ergo, I am a taxpayer. This discussion of "who is a taxpayer" is pointless and stupid.
Actually, you didn't say you paid income taxes just then. You just said you filed your form. My mom filed a form too, but didn't pay taxes. 
29408
Post by: Melissia
Frazzled wrote:Actually, you didn't say you paid income taxes just then. You just said you filed your form. My mom filed a form too, but didn't pay taxes.
I refer you here: Melissia wrote:This discussion of "who is a taxpayer" is pointless and stupid.
Emphasis mine. And even if I didn't pay income tax, I still pay taxes every time I buy something, and numerous other examples of taxes as well, so I don't honestly care.
221
Post by: Frazzled
SO you just admitted you don't pay income tax but want to spend my money WHO DOES PAY INCOME TAX on something you don't yourself. Awesome.
On the positive I also vote.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Frazzled wrote:SO you just admitted you don't pay income tax
No I didn't. Melissia wrote:And even if I didn't pay income tax
Try actually reading posts you respond to some time.
221
Post by: Frazzled
OK you're still evading . However this is a personal issue so I am backing off. It is just the OT and not like its a pressing humanitarian issue, or more importantly, lunch.
1206
Post by: Easy E
News flash:
Even if you get a refund, you are still a taxpayer. The refund is simply the amount you OVERPAID over the course of the year based on your income.
Even if the Feds give you more back in the refund, there was between 1 day and 12 months where you did not have acces to the money, and the government was earning the interest on it (or otherwise investing/using it) instead of you.
Edit: This assumes you receive a W2
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thats amazingly insightful in answering an issue no one brought up...
4402
Post by: CptJake
Frazzled wrote:Thats amazingly insightful in answering an issue no one brought up...
And less than accurate as some folks get 'credit' in with their refund check and receive more (in some case MUCH more) than was withheld during the course of the year. And failure to understand how to properly fill out a W4 is no reason to whine that uncle sam took out too much to begin with.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Guys, if you want only taxpayers to vote you merely need to eliminate all other taxes and establish a simple voting tax of between $0.01 and $100,000,000 per voter per election.
The desireable level of the tax is left to the reader as an exercise in political economy.
5534
Post by: dogma
CptJake wrote:
And less than accurate as some folks get 'credit' in with their refund check and receive more (in some case MUCH more) than was withheld during the course of the year.
Yes, but for the purposes of achieving the figure of ~50% of US citizens not paying taxes, one has to exclude people who simply are refunded what was withheld, which is dubious statistical gamesmanship at the best of times.
Of course, this is a lay conversation about politics and policy, so its all basically just people picking out numbers they like without bothering to consider how those numbers were produced.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Kilkrazy wrote:Guys, if you want only taxpayers to vote you merely need to eliminate all other taxes and establish a simple voting tax of between $0.01 and $100,000,000 per voter per election.
The desireable level of the tax is left to the reader as an exercise in political economy.
As far as I can tell, you're about the only one bringing that dumb idea. And it really isn't relevant to the OP.
22413
Post by: mwnciboo
One interesting thing about this I must point out to all the British readers is the glory days of Philanthropy the Victorian Period. When our Great-Great Grandfathers all got together and said "We are men of means and wealth, there are many without, let us build that which society needs".
And they did, from Terraced housing to Parks to Schools to Hospitals to Universities. This great social, philanthropic good seemed to be en vogue and very much the right thing to do both politically, socially and morally.
When did we stop? When did we all decide to ignore what our progressive forbears did and decide to keep and horde wealth. When was the watershed? And why did we stop making huge social changes with private money, just because it was the right thing to do? It seems that this Morally tempered, responsible capitalism is interesting and I really like the idea it can come back, but it seems Greed and avarice are now core to society. I saw that TV programme "The Real Wives of Orange County" today, the whole of that Car Crash of a TV show underlines how society is wrong and shallow avarice and self servience is corrupting and rottern.
For the record I believe in a direct Tax system so all strata of society pay the same 35% (or whatever) with the exception that it doesn't kick in until you earn say an arbitary amount (e.g just below the Average national earnings so £12,000 or whatever).
The wealth creators argument is nonsense, without workers they would earn nothing. It is a team element, like society, I don't believe in dodging Tax. A responsible citizen obeys the Law and pays their taxes, no more no less. Those who dodge tax are irresponsible and do not deserve to reap the benefits of an ordered and prosperous society.
Well done to Warren Buffet and Stephen King, for speaking sensible truths which will make society fairer and more cohesive.
EDIT - Someone paid a $107 Million for a painting yesterday, how much could that person have done with that? How many Thousands of Families helped? How many children immunised? How much Health care? How many School Text books? How much would a Trust fund of this amount give out over 100 years? Now they have a Canvas of a Man screaming, which is how i hope they feel when they realise they bought this one item when they could have done massive social good. It makes me want to scream.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Why did you buy the computer you're posting on? You don't need it. In fact, you could have given the money to a poor family instead. Y'know, to spend in Iceland/Ladbrokes/Bargain Booze (delete as appropriate).
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Don't give money to the poor, spend money to help the poor.
It's the old "give a man a fish" deal.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Personally, I think a very important principle applies:
Don't hate, emulate.
Seriously. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, and you look around and see people doing well, hating them and trying to drag them down a few pegs will not improve your life. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, go out and GET rich. That WILL improve your life.
34906
Post by: Pacific
mwnciboo wrote:One interesting thing about this I must point out to all the British readers is the glory days of Philanthropy the Victorian Period. When our Great-Great Grandfathers all got together and said "We are men of means and wealth, there are many without, let us build that which society needs".
And they did, from Terraced housing to Parks to Schools to Hospitals to Universities. This great social, philanthropic good seemed to be en vogue and very much the right thing to do both politically, socially and morally.
When did we stop? When did we all decide to ignore what our progressive forbears did and decide to keep and horde wealth. When was the watershed?
That's an interesting question. I read an article in a newspaper about the state of Philanthropy in the world, and right now the UK is one of the worst. Yet the US ranks highly, with a high proportion of the 'super rich' (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc.) giving far more than their UK counterparts. I have a theory that it is how one encounters that wealth that determines the extent of their philanthropy. In the same way that the industrialists of the 19th century had new-found wealth,the likes of Buffet and Gates came to their wealth despite relatively more humble origins. They can still relate to other people in society as they were once part of it, and so they try and do what they can to help. I think moneyed families, and parts of society such as the 'old boy network' in the UK are far less likely as they don't necessarily see themselves as part of the same system.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Perhaps it's just that they feel like they give enough to society through taxation.
CAVEAT: I'm not saying that they do, just that it might be their perception.
5534
Post by: dogma
Pacific wrote:
That's an interesting question. I read an article in a newspaper about the state of Philanthropy in the world, and right now the UK is one of the worst. Yet the US ranks highly, with a high proportion of the 'super rich' (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc.) giving far more than their UK counterparts.
It may also have something to do with your tax system. In the US there is a strong incentive to engage in philanthropy for the purposes of securing tax deductions.
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
Albatross wrote:Personally, I think a very important principle applies:
Don't hate, emulate.
Seriously. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, and you look around and see people doing well, hating them and trying to drag them down a few pegs will not improve your life. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, go out and GET rich. That WILL improve your life.
If this was ideal meritocracy then your argument might hold some weight.
Unfortunately, it isn't and it doesn't.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Albatross wrote:Why did you buy the computer you're posting on? You don't need it. In fact, you could have given the money to a poor family instead.
The distilled essence of why these threads are so silly. To wit: pontificating about the wasting of money from a completely superfluous machine that generally costs a fair amount of... um... money.
Well done, you.
22413
Post by: mwnciboo
Albatross wrote:Personally, I think a very important principle applies:
Don't hate, emulate.
Seriously. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, and you look around and see people doing well, hating them and trying to drag them down a few pegs will not improve your life. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, go out and GET rich. That WILL improve your life.
I'm not angry at rich/wealthy people, I'm angry at horders and greedy people who take more and give little, don't pay their fair share of TAX and don't see how detrimental it is for society. Those who dodge Tax, and don't seem to understand how lucky they are, the worship of wealth and materialism is bad for society. This isn't Communism, it's social responsible capitalism. In the UK if you earn between £99,000 to £114,000 your effective tax rate is 55%, where as if you earn above £114,000 it's 45%. Explain that? So you pay less TAX if you earn more? Don't Hate, emulate isn't a cure, it actually perpetuates this 1% of people controlling 25% of the wealth. Most Millionaires have their Pay paid into a Company avoiding the 45% TAX Rate, and paying CORPORATION TAX @ 27%. Quite alot of people who earn over £99,000 do this and avoid the PAYE TAX system, this is wrong. The burden of TAX proportionally is on the Middle Earners or Middle Class. It's not about bringing people down, it's about encouraging people to be socially responsible. Just because you are wealthy doesn't mean you should be beyond reproach or without morals. Bill Gates and others have given away Billions, and he has done incredible amounts of good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropists For the Record - Wealth doesn't equal an Improved Life. Possibly more comfort, but by what measure can determine if a life is improved? @MONSTER RAIN thats such a ridiculous statement, a Laptop costs £300 some of the richest people earn more than that in a single minute and yet pay protionally less TAX than me. What is wrong with me earning £50,000 (paying TAX @ 40%) a year buying a Car and a Laptop and a house, but also giving by Direct Debit to CANCER RESEARCH UK? To say give away your material goods is great in principle but it would kill Capitalism if we started doing this, and thereby the system and even less people would benefit from the increasing growth in world wealth. It is a vacuous argument for Rampant Capitalism and thats why the Worlds in a Complete Mess Financially, because of a lack of responsibility brought on my uncontrolled avarice. The Argument of give a man a fish holds zero water as does give up all material things to better others. Better to give the man immunisation and education, but most of these people live in highly corrupt societies with little or no infrastructure or oppressive regimes or murderous groups (like Somalia for example) so how do you do it? So buy a man a fish is bollox it shows the comprehension level of a child or willful naivety. dogma wrote:Pacific wrote:
That's an interesting question. I read an article in a newspaper about the state of Philanthropy in the world, and right now the UK is one of the worst. Yet the US ranks highly, with a high proportion of the 'super rich' (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc.) giving far more than their UK counterparts.
It may also have something to do with your tax system. In the US there is a strong incentive to engage in philanthropy for the purposes of securing tax deductions.
We actually do get TAX breaks for Philanthropic Works and Donations and it is a popular way of Big earners reducing their Tax bill. The Government screwed up a couple of weeks ago trying to close this supposed Loop hole, and brought down the wrath of the Extremely Wealth and Charities who gain from this. The Yanks are extremely generous by comparison.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
mwnciboo wrote:[@MONSTER RAIN thats such a ridiculous statement, a Laptop costs £300 some of the richest people earn more than that in a single minute and yet pay protionally less TAX than me.
No, no, I get it. You should have more than you "need" but others shouldn't because you feel that they have too much. This seems to be another instance of "X should happen, but it should be paid for with other peoples' money." I only bring it up to point out that this is all based on to what degree you consider someone to be "rich." There's always going to be someone who has it worse than you, and someone who has it better.
That's how it reads to me, anyway.
mwnciboo wrote:What is wrong with me earning £50,000 (paying TAX @ 40%) a year buying a Car and a Laptop and a house, but also giving by Direct Debit to CANCER RESEARCH UK?
40% seems a bit high, but that's beside the point. I'd never tell you what to do with your money, but I'd like for you to have the choice as to where it goes. If I did have insane amounts of money, I'd rather give it directly to charities that would benefit directly from it, and not, for example, fund ridiculous government money wasting programs and extended wars that aren't handled very well.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Albatross wrote:Why did you buy the computer you're posting on? You don't need it. In fact, you could have given the money to a poor family instead. Y'know, to spend in Iceland/Ladbrokes/Bargain Booze (delete as appropriate).
Bargain Booze!
Albatross wrote:Personally, I think a very important principle applies:
Don't hate, emulate.
Seriously. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, and you look around and see people doing well, hating them and trying to drag them down a few pegs will not improve your life. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, go out and GET rich. That WILL improve your life.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:mwnciboo wrote:[@MONSTER RAIN thats such a ridiculous statement, a Laptop costs £300 some of the richest people earn more than that in a single minute and yet pay protionally less TAX than me.
No, no, I get it.
Clearly he gets it. The point was simply that person X whinges like feth about rich people buying paintings while they buy cheetos and Nike trainers and fags and cans and little plastic men.
Poor people have cheaper luxuries, but they are still luxuries. The "you don't really need that" argument is a gak one.
|
|
